Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Tue, 30 July 2019 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FE012002E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6nvZk0TGn9pv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BEA3120019 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hsGbN-00013u-Dz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:06:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:06:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hsGbN-00013u-Dz@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1hsGbL-000139-27 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:06:51 +0000
Received: from mail-lf1-x12d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1hsGbJ-0005tO-G5 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:06:50 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id b17so43421154lff.7 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OUtb2toiQxTLXZG27sIEVLa+qbpib22i5gzAMCEdki0=; b=MwuFCRKvnR12Kx6qtZFLLQjDdLEDlESuUnTknn4U+MACEhN3p3aFVDSxnbZJu3xYX4 IlN9kI5n1DqF6uwYQCVhb8TCxEUlM/71dGE4U/y6bjDI2lSkBYCwgh5QR/0MXjS2BYTE LtQ6Sj2PTNi85/x94E8jlfXPXb7lBWXJWdEySKMu9tAKP5c0AC0ar3i/XHUPrCRGjZJN yWCYFuOaD1n1t8JJeKrWB7M3XMYAMlY2mYw0hZ3drpbF/HZSTVbWEB7Rm+Pylzh8Py+O 3hrkVYEA3OtaVO5wq7GO0uXkORE5wb0MTsjRzcNR/efI1y4VYDuYVHA0t9uvrkmmPbCA DvOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OUtb2toiQxTLXZG27sIEVLa+qbpib22i5gzAMCEdki0=; b=FXH9GN1CsWULQg4ldFjDi0copyX1ZVY+ovVx8zRaStmPKnPkARx3+EFDq765nsKYvd p4lYuvQthdfeW1IIDb76XgF9hXYfxcq5MzRTw2ycs80b8P3MScEoMPMDzCK5lz+TvyoW yLAfhWOwSQHx0G8CYWVLjY8o4DoP0bL5kPN49+yzWNiwg3/pTT/eLr5yA60ZookoFBk4 dGRW1G6730tZVZ6dxEi7l+b/wM4TTXuaRRDx8ghrwabz9hAIEVF2au8TAa98GTOoIknM i+8RO9dSl41B7stCem//oW3L7iGum2m+MVoTbknRLNMnpmA7Pp7oRjczWI19PCvMtucx OK9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWV8QD2zAbdGbjm3Ko7k5/f8qirysT01OY9D4cVwwfYHRXN9ADA Extig/DuSJ3MpF3U5Tc9HRC2drtpmfzsNxc6GmU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqySZRFWlY32f0GwZR8JCx22WTXUlbw40F3cOfe2QX4O3gRvN8FZGrVb0shtUvE8lZNw7ShqJMF5Wm44bHbwW5Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:914c:: with SMTP id y12mr52905315lfj.108.1564448787072; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALjsk164zz+nDy5ZmOhvCscBQrBNMKTW0fz7Zxy=KtVx+ktz+Q@mail.gmail.com> <20190726031912.GB29509@1wt.eu> <CALGR9oZ7CyJ3LD4rmJn+4=E83ad3qc93Nc82-uJMXjiRL+NQjA@mail.gmail.com> <20190726052449.GD29509@1wt.eu> <CY4PR22MB09838DC9BAEC171E7B37454FDADD0@CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR22MB09838DC9BAEC171E7B37454FDADD0@CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 10:06:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzy0MsrS_+h9Mx_CDoi5a4WUP+VrX6tf9Q5zgvP5esmDAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::12d; envelope-from=kazuhooku@gmail.com; helo=mail-lf1-x12d.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.333, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hsGbJ-0005tO-G5 2c4456a8b006e274eebd9fdb5b901452
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CANatvzy0MsrS_+h9Mx_CDoi5a4WUP+VrX6tf9Q5zgvP5esmDAA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36870
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

2019年7月30日(火) 4:41 Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>;:
>
> Both are issues.  I think the first order of business is to know whether the peer supports PRIORITY. If the client doesn't, the server might choose to be more aggressive about making its own inferences.  If the server doesn't, the client might as well save some bytes and might choose to delay low-priority requests on the assumption the server will be assuming the requests are in priority order.

+1.

I think that the proposed settings is the right way to go. Even though
it is sometimes the issue with endpoints using priorities incorrectly
(e.g., a web browser assigning different "weights" based on the type
of the resource), introducing the proposed settings would be the
correct thing to do in order to sunset the H2 prioritization scheme.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>;
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 1:25 AM
> To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>;
> Cc: Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>;; HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>;
> Subject: Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities
>
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:48:40PM -0400, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> > The aim is to maintain todays default behavior of endpoints supporting H2.
> > This is achieved by defining the initial value of the setting as 1;
> > endpoints "opt out" by sending 0.
>
> Ah OK, thanks for clearing this out!
>
> > Do you think we have mis-specced this compared to our aim?
>
> No, but I might have misread it, I'll re-read. I also noticed that the beginning of the wording in the abstract mentioned clients not supporting priorities while they are usually the ones advertising them while servers not supporting them is (in my opinion) the real concern here (except maybe for PUSH). But I'll have another read with more caffeine :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Willy
>
>


-- 
Kazuho Oku